Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree child abuse in Rhode Island state court, was denied habeas corpus by the district court. Petitioner was watching his girlfriend's two-and-one-half-year-old child when the child became increasingly ill. It was later determined that the child, who survived, incurred a subdural hematoma and was suffering increased intercranial pressure that threatened his life. Petition claimed that the child, who did not show signs of prior abuse, was prone to falling and had fallen down stairs. The First Circuit affirmed, stating that the evidence was circumstantial, but substantial.

Defendant, an addict with no prior criminal history, was one of 12 indicted co-conspirators convicted of conspiracy to import five or more kilograms of cocaine and one or more kilograms of heroin, as well as actual importation of five or more kilograms of cocaine, and was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed. Affidavits supported the decision to authorize wiretaps under 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(c) and speculation that a confidential source must already have known and shared with the investigators the details of the conspiracy's inner workings before the wiretap application was illogical and unsupported. The district court decision that defendant knowingly and voluntarily decided to cooperate, without counsel, waiving his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, was not an error.

The company claimed that the union violated a collective bargaining agreement no-strike clause on four occasions in 2008 and 2009 as part of a pattern of behavior undercutting the arbitral process. Specifically, the company claims the union made representations that the union would fine members who brought required devices to work, engaged in a short concerted work stoppage, coordinated refusals to volunteer for overtime work, and protested at a company facility each morning for several weeks. The district court granted the union summary judgment, finding that the company had not shown future harm and declining to issue either injunctive or declaratory relief. The First Circuit affirmed denial of injunctive relief, but vacated with respect to declaratory relief. The alleged actions do not establish a repeated pattern giving rise to ongoing harm that would justify an injunction, but the matter is ripe for declaratory relief.

Three defendants were convicted of conspiracy and drug charges (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846, 860) stemming from a drug distribution operation in a public housing project and two were convicted of gun charges (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846, 860) because of the killing of three unintended victims in a botched attempt to kill a rival gang member. Two received sentences of life in prison; the third was sentenced to 151 months. The First Circuit affirmed in part, but remanded for resentencing of the defendant not involved in the attempted assassination. The defendants were not prejudiced by the court's error in responding to notes received from the jury during deliberations without alerting counsel. The court's questioning of prospective jurors outside the presence of the defendants was justified. The court also rejected challenges concerning the composition of the jury and Spanish translations. There was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, except with respect to the quantities of drugs attributed to the defendant not involved in the killings.

An inmate of the Maine corrections system, sought a civil rights remedy (42 U.S.C. 1983) for alleged denial of adequate medical care for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by healthcare professionals at a jail and the state prison. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The First Circuit affirmed with respect to the contractor that provides care, stating that the evidence could not establish Eighth Amendment violations, but reversed with respect to a physicians' assistant. Although the contractor acknowledged that its care "fell short of the mark," carelessness or inadvertence falls short of the Eighth Amendment standard of deliberate indifference. There was a material dispute about deliberate indifference by the physicians' assistant, who had a financial interest in limiting care and a disciplinary history.

A medical social worker at the Health Department of San Juan sued the municipality and officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they fired her in retaliation for statements she made on matters of public concern in violation of the First Amendment. The district court denied the individual defendants summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. The First Circuit reversed. Defendants could have reasonably concluded that they did not have the necessary confidence and trust in plaintiff to continue her employment and that firing her would not violate her First Amendment rights: the city investigated plaintiff's much publicized allegations of serious improprieties by the executive director of her department, she refused to provide testimony or evidence to corroborate her claims, the investigation determined that the claims were false and baseless, and her actions were found to violate state and local regulations.

A jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 in damages in a Title VII suit alleging intentional discrimination by her former employer. Plaintiff had testified that during her employment as a construction worker, she was forced to perform oral sex on a supervisor multiple times, was subjected to extreme, continuing sexual abuse by coworkers and supervisors, that the job was her only means of supporting her family, and that the company ignored her complaints. The district court reduced the jury award to $50,000 under 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3)(A), using the year of the award to measure the number of employees and determine the size of the applicable statutory cap. The First Circuit vacated and remanded for an award of $200,000,stating that the relevant year for determining the cap was the year in which the discrimination occurred and that the employer had the burden of proof with respect to the cap.

A Maine jury found defendant guilty of possession of a firearm following a conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on closing argument statements that there was no suggestion that the gun was planted or that defendant did not know it was there. The first statement was not improper, given an argument that defendant was framed; the second was not prejudicial.

Petitioner was convicted, in Massachusetts state court, of murdering his 11-month-old son and is serving a life sentence. The child's death was attributed to malnutrition; the family followed strict religious dietary restrictions. The district court rejected a habeas corpus petition that claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that there was no alternative defense strategy that would have created a reasonable probability of success. The court rejected arguments based on petitioner's competency, failure to raise an insanity defense, and the discrepant outcomes for the various defendants responsible for the child's death.

ALC filed suit against Lamex in commonwealth court under Puerto Rico's Dealers' Contract Act (Law 75), which prohibits a principal from terminating a business relationship with a dealer without just cause. Before service of process, Lamex filed suit in federal court. The federal district court denied Lamex's requests to pierce the corporate veil and for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, but granted Lamex's request for a declaratory judgment absolving it from liability under Law 75, ordered ALC to pay, and ordered the Superior Court of San Juan to release the money ALC consigned. The First Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions against ALC and the monetary judgment in favor of Lamex, but vacated the judgment with respect to Lamex's claims for a declaratory judgment and to pierce ALC's corporate veil. The district court erred in failing to provide indisputably clear notice of its intent to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2) and, in so doing, abrogated ALC's right to a jury trial.